Here are the concerns actually raised by the Freedom For Christian Women Coalition:

At a time in our church history that the main focus should be on winning lost souls and spreading the gospel to a hurting world, we fear for the future because the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood has placed a greater priority on women’s submissive role rather than on the gospel of Jesus Christ.

It is with that thought in mind that we make these statements.

1. We are concerned that men are being taught that they are god-like in their relationship to women within the church and home. As the mothers, wives, and daughters of these men, it is our concern that this doctrine is setting them up for failure as Christian fathers, husbands and sons;

2. we are concerned about the sin that evangelical church leaders commit when they deny the love of Christ fully to women simply because they were born female;

3. we are concerned about the damage this causes to families when husbands and fathers are told that they have Headship over their wives and daughters;

4. we are concerned about wife abuse, girlfriend abuse, and abuse to female children that takes place in many homes where evangelical men are taught that they have earthly and spiritual authority over women;

5. we are concerned that the children who attend churches that subscribe to the principles of The Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood will grow up not knowing the full redemptive power of the blood of Jesus for both men and women;

6. we are concerned for the mental and emotional development of girls and boys who attend churches that teach males have superiority over females;

7. we are concerned that men who are taught that they have Male Headship over a home and church do not feel that they are accountable for abusive attitudes and actions towards women;

8. we are concerned about the mistranslation of the scriptures by complementarian translation committees and by the false teachings propagated by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood;

9. we are concerned that pastors who teach and preach male domination/female subordination cannot relate in a loving, Christ-like manner to female members of their congregations because they have already judged them and found them lacking;

10. we are concerned that the issue of wifely submission, promoted so heavily by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, is more about power and control than about love or obeying the Word of God.

How is it "daft" to ask that teachings that result in spousal abuse by men who use these teachings as an excuse, be reconsidered? How is it "daft" to call to account an organization that has elevated the subjugation of women as a doctrine equal to the doctrines of grace in importance in the church?

Daughters of the Church, a study of women in church history by Ruth Tucker and Walter Liefeld, says this:

"The frequent response of the church [to the concerns of women] was to reaffirm male leadership rather than to give evidence of a desire to understand the perspective of women. Such a response could hardly have failed to fortify the impression that the church was a, if not the, major opponent of women."

Such is the impression that calling "daft" the legitimate protests of wounded and hurting women, gives now.

This impression runs rampant in the secular world today. Paul said that women should "submit to their husbands" so that the "word of God not be hindered." The "word of God" is hindered now by the pervasive idea that Christianity itself is unjust in its attitudes towards half the human race. In upholding the letter of Paul's writings, the church, over and over again, violates their spirit. And when women lift up their voices to point this out, they are called "daft."

Why ought anyone apologise for their beliefs, if they possess them only within the Groups they voluntarily associate with?

The women in Freedom for Christian Women belong to churches that subscribe to and practice the teachings of CBMW. They themselves are directly affected. Their children are directly affected. They consider themselves to have not only a right, but an obligation, to speak up against false and destructive doctrine being propagated by this group, in the churches to which they themselves belong.

So I'll ask again, if they do not belong to the same group, why are they demanding an apology?

Some Jewish groups critisise Christians who pray for their conversion and demand apologies. But an apology means they are wrong to believe Jesus is the Saviour and Messiah and all need to come to him.

Mormons are frequently attacked over their Baptisms for the Dead, which I always found odd as the people who attack them usually claim that such rituals don't work and have no effect.

What your asking is basically tantamount to demand this group change its beliefs to suit something more to your own liking.

Its less an argument from Egalitarianism but general Liberty ten. Why should this group not be Free to practice their beliefs and to propagate them? should they be denied their Free Speech?

If this group wasn't preaching Biblical Manhood and Womanhood in the way they were, if they were preaching something you personally agreed with, and I demanded an apology, would you really see that as Reasonable?

What part of "they belong to churches who subscribe to and practice these teachings" did you not understand?

The people whose teachings are propagated on CBMW are the same people who are considered authoritative teachers for the churches these women attend. CBMW's teachers are quoted from the pulpits where these women attend church.

One of the women who founded this group was nearly killed by her abusive husband, and subsequently told by her church that she just needed to go back home and be more submissive to him. CBMW's teachings were relied on by her church and by her husband, who was a pastor.

However, demanding an apology is still off base. They are still free to join other Churches.

As to the Tragic Misadvise, while I would certainly condemn anyone for asking a severely abused woman to go back into such a State, you can't equate all people who reject your view of Egalitarianism with such actions, and its no more rational a position than Atheists who use Fred Phelps as an example of how all Christians are bad.

I don't know a lot about these Churches or their doctrinal take, but I do know Churches that dn't ordain women liek Cathlics, orthodox, Traditional Anglicans, Traditional Lutherans, Presbyterians, and any number of others woudl never have given such advice as tellign her to go back and submit.

It is laughable to say that abused women, living in mortal fear, are "free" to do anything at all. Many of these churches tell women that if they leave the church, they're in rebellion and in danger of losing their salvation.

Many abusive husbands threaten to kill their wives if they try to leave.

No, I do not equate all complementarians with these teachings. Where on earth did you read that anywhere in this post? But I was astonished that you appeared to be defending these people-- apparently without having actually clicked on the links or tried to find out anything about what you were defending.

I disagree with all complementarianism. It is about restricting women-- the only difference is in how far she is to be restricted. But that doesn't mean I'm saying all complementarians go this far.

To be fair, CBMW does not encourage men to abuse their wives. But many of its teachings place the blame for the abuse on the woman's lack of submission. Its teachings on male authority and privilege certainly can lead a certain type of man to feel justified in his abuse.

It is laughable to say that abused women, living in mortal fear, are "free" to do anything at all.

I didn’t say they were, I said that a Church should not send them back into the abuse to submit to it, in fact. However, the topic of abused women doesn’t really relate to the topic of this group demanding an apology for a Church teaching what it believes in.

Its rather like a Homosexual Catholic organisation I read once demanding the Church apologise for its teachings on Homosexuality. The Catholic Church doesn’t on average abuse Homosexuals, and they are free to become Episcopalians who do accept their lifestyle, yet they want to remain Catholic, and simply demand the Catholic Church change her Teachings to suit them.

Its not like he Catholic Church is the only game in town, but rather than go to a more accepting Catholic styles Church., like many “Old Catholic” churches, or many Anglican offshoots, they insist the Pope personally apologise for a teaching they find offensive even though they know of the teaching well in advance.

Its that sort of thing we’re discussing. Not abused women.

Many of these churches tell women that if they leave the church, they're in rebellion and in danger of losing their salvation.

As wrong as that is, it is still not really relevant to the topic.

Bringing it up is more about emotional manipulation than discussing the topic at hand.

Many abusive husbands threaten to kill their wives if they try to leave.

And do so even in wonderful Egalitarian Churches with women preachers. Often the women never report these matters t women clergy. Or to women who they work with. Or anyone.

I know, I’m getting a degree in Psychology. Its hard to break form abuse, no matter what the Religious affiliation of he victim is.

But that doesn’t make demanding an apology from a Church for its teachings really right, does it?

No, I do not equate all complementarians with these teachings. Where on earth did you read that anywhere in this post? But I was astonished that you appeared to be defending these people-- apparently without having actually clicked on the links or tried to find out anything about what you were defending.

Because all I got form that one blog entry was that these women want a group to change its teachings rather than for them to leave and find something more to their liking.

I am Libertarian, after all. I don’t think people need to be forced into compliance by anyone in regards to their beliefs.

I disagree with all complementarianism. It is about restricting women-- the only difference is in how far she is to be restricted. But that doesn't mean I'm saying all complementarians go this far.

But you never addrs anything they say as to why.

To be fair, CBMW does not encourage men to abuse their wives. But many of its teachings place the blame for the abuse on the woman's lack of submission. Its teachings on male authority and privilege certainly can lead a certain type of man to feel justified in his abuse.

But. I’ve seen people with similar beliefs, as far as I can gather them form this limited exposure. Churches that teach women to submit, nd yet those same Churches would never, ever send a woman back into abuse. That would be seen as a man Violating his own duty, which is to Love his wife as Christ loved the Church, and the Church would usually try to shelter the woman from the abuser and notify authorities.

So this is really not about Abusive Husbands being sheltered by these Churches, as while that may happen on occasion, it doesn’t happen all the time to all Churches with similar beliefs.